A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4427 of 2025, decided 27 March 2025, concerns the validity of appointments of two doctors as Assistant Professors in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PMR) at Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) when they lacked the prescribed two-year diploma in PMR.

The High Court set aside the appointments on the view that there was no evidence of impossibility in obtaining that diploma and that the candidates had not made efforts to secure admission. The Supreme Court reversed. It emphasised the notification of SKIMS which expressly blocked two posts for the candidates subject to SKIMS sponsoring them for the two-year diploma and executing a service bond; therefore SKIMS, not the candidates, bore the affirmative duty to secure admissions.

The record showed SKIMS could not obtain diploma seats because many institutions discontinued the diploma course; instead short-term on-the-job training at AIIMS, New Delhi was arranged and completed. A letter from the Head, PMR, AIIMS explained AIIMS did not run a diploma and recommended short-term training for practical competence.

The Court held the High Court erred in ignoring these material facts and in discrediting expert recommendation by Dr. U. Singh. The Supreme Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, directed revival of the specific posts and allowed the appeals while stating the decision should not be treated as precedent.

Keywords: Assistant Professor appointments, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, blocked posts, impossibility, short-term training (AIIMS).

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeals arise out of PIL challenges to appointments made by SKIMS in 2005–2010 where two candidates were placed as Senior Residents with a prospective sponsorship by SKIMS for a two-year diploma in PMR and a commitment to appoint as Assistant Professors after completion and upon execution of a seven-year bond. SKIMS’ XXIX Apical Selection Committee recommended the arrangement and blocked two Assistant Professor posts for this purpose.

Practical difficulties emerged: many institutions had discontinued the two-year diploma; AIIMS, New Delhi, did not run a diploma but offered on-the-job short-term training under senior faculty which, while not equivalent to a diploma, produced work-ready competence. SKIMS sent the doctors for such short-term training (six months) at AIIMS and then issued appointment orders in 2010, relying on the Apical Committee’s earlier decision and a relaxation of diploma requirement for contractual personnel by DGHS in 2008.

The High Court, in PIL proceedings, set aside the appointments finding there was no legal impossibility in obtaining the diploma and noting applicants had not shown attempts to obtain admission.

The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court erred in ignoring the institutional sponsorship arrangement, the factual impossibility caused by discontinuance of diploma programmes, and the recommendations of the apex medical expert body.

The Court examined admissible documentary record (notifications, correspondence with AIIMS, SKIMS internal notes) and held reinstatement appropriate while warning the order is not a precedent.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The State issued advertisement in December 2004/February 2005 for medical faculty at SKIMS. The appellants applied but were initially ineligible. In August 2005 the Apical Selection Committee recommended appointment of the two as Senior Residents with sponsorship for a two-year PMR diploma and a blocking of two Assistant Professor posts until completion and execution of a seven-year bond.

They were appointed Senior Residents in December 2005. SKIMS attempted to secure diploma admission for them but encountered practical obstacles: several institutions (including PGI) had discontinued the diploma; AIIMS did not run a diploma but offered on-the-job training. In March 2006 Dr. U. Singh, HOD PMR, AIIMS, explained AIIMS offers MD/three-year degrees not diplomas and suggested short-term competency training that suffices for faculty work though not equivalent to a formal diploma.

Consequently the appellants underwent six months’ training at AIIMS in 2007 and returned. SKIMS acknowledged in a 26 October 2007 communication that diploma could not be arranged and asked that the candidates be considered for Assistant Professor posts per the Apical Committee decision. A DGHS relaxation (12 Feb 2008) for contractual employees further weakened the necessity of strict diploma compliance.

Ultimately SKIMS appointed the appellants as Assistant Professors by notification dated 20 October 2010. Subsequently, PIL(s) were filed contesting the appointments. The High Court annulled the appointments on the ground that there was no demonstrated impossibility and that candidates failed to attempt admission; the appointments were cancelled by Government Order No.42-SKIMS of 21 May 2018.

The Supreme Court reviewed the material and set aside the High Court order, finding SKIMS bore the obligation to obtain diploma seats and the institution had attempted but failed due to closure/discontinuance; the short-term AIIMS training and expert recommendation justified relaxation in the facts; ordered reinstatement with continuity (but without back wages) and directed revival of the blocked posts.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a PIL is maintainable to challenge faculty appointments in service matters where statutory prescriptions exist?
ii. Whether appointments made without the prescribed diploma in PMR can be set aside when institutional sponsorship and practical impossibility to obtain the diploma are demonstrated?
iii. Whether short-term on-the-job training and expert recommendation can substitute the required diploma for faculty appointment in exceptional circumstances?
iv. Whether the Apical Selection Committee’s decision and notification blocking posts bind the appointing authority and affect legal analysis of eligibility?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsel for appellants submitted that SKIMS itself had sponsored the candidates and blocked posts conditionally; SKIMS attempted but could not secure diploma seats; appellants completed AIIMS short-term training which was recommended by AIIMS HOD and thus SKIMS validly appointed them.
ii. They argued impossibility to obtain the diploma due to discontinuance of the course; therefore rigid application of diploma requirement would be contrary to substance and fairness.
iii. It was urged that expert opinion from AIIMS and administrative action (apical committee, DGHS relaxation) justified the appointments and the High Court erred in discounting these materials.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsel for the State/petitioners in PIL contended that prescribed qualifications (diploma) existed and there was nothing to show the candidates made bona fide efforts to secure admission; mere institutional difficulty did not erase statutory eligibility.
ii. It was argued that substitution by short-term training cannot supplant statutory or rule-based qualifications and that appointment inure to public interest concerns about academic standards and patient care.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 103, J&K Constitution (procedure for public interest litigation/writs).
ii. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (qualification provisions referenced in advertisement — Schedule I/II Part II).
iii. Recruitment rules and SKIMS Apical Selection Committee resolutions as internal administrative law instruments.
iv. DGHS circulars relaxing requirements for contractual appointments (as applied in 2008).

I) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The Court first canvassed maintainability: accepting precedents that PILs in service matters are generally not maintainable but noting exceptions where statutory rule breaches warrant writ relief. The core analysis, however, was factual and administrative: the 24 November 2005 notification explicitly blocked two Assistant Professor posts for the candidates with SKIMS to sponsor a two-year diploma and execute a seven-year service bond.

That notification, the Court held, placed the affirmative duty on SKIMS to secure admissions. The record (SKIMS counter affidavit and contemporaneous correspondence) showed SKIMS tried but could not find diploma seats many colleges had ceased the diploma course and AIIMS did not offer the diploma but offered short term competency training under Dr. U. Singh who expressly recommended that such training sufficed for faculty work though not amounting to a diploma.

The High Court’s conclusion that appellants made no efforts was found to be premised on an erroneous fact-finding and an unjust disregard of the institution’s role. The Court criticised the High Court’s apparent discounting of Dr. U. Singh’s expert opinion as unfounded.

On relief, the Supreme Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, directed revival of the two posts (finance concurrence to be obtained), and limited monetary relief — no back wages for the removal period. The Court emphasised the order is fact-specific and not to be treated as precedent.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal reasoning is:

(i) where appointment is conditioned on institutional sponsorship for a qualification, the sponsoring authority bears the primary duty to arrange admission;

(ii) when factual impossibility occurs here widespread discontinuance of the diploma course and the employer arranges acceptable alternate training with expert endorsement (AIIMS HOD), such circumstances justify relaxation or administrative accommodation; and

(iii) a High Court should not set aside administrative appointments on the basis of erroneous factual findings or ignoring documentary record of institutional efforts.

The Court thereby affirms administrative discretion informed by expert medical opinion and practical realities of medical training availability in reaching a just outcome.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Bench observed, obiter, that PILs in service matters require caution and that writ relief should not substitute for rule-amendment where systemic qualifications are lacking; where difficulty is systemic, administrative processes (rule amendment) are the correct route unless statutory rule breach is manifest.

The Court also remarked on institutional responsibility to maintain transparent records when sponsoring candidates and the need for courts to carefully verify documentary claims before setting aside appointments.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Administrative bodies sponsoring qualifications must document and pursue efforts to secure admissions; such record-keeping is material in any later judicial scrutiny.
ii. Expert institutional advice (e.g., AIIMS HOD) carries weight in assessing functional equivalence of training where formal courses are unavailable.
iii. Courts should avoid substituting their view for administrative choices when evidence shows bona fide institutional attempts and expert support.
iv. Where appointments rest on blocked posts with conditional sponsorship, revival of those posts and formal administrative steps (bonds, finance concurrence) should be ensured before reinstatement.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision balances rule-based eligibility and practical administrative realities: it recognises that strict formalism can produce injustice when the employer has committed to secure qualifications but is thwarted by systemic discontinuance of courses.

The Court’s remedial approach reinstatement with continuity but without retrospective wages and a directive to revive posts reflects equitable discretion. Notwithstanding, the judgment underscores institutional accountability in transparency and proactive rule revision where qualifications become infeasible.

The case is a caution to courts and administrative bodies: factual matrices and contemporaneous documentary evidence must drive outcomes in service litigation rather than rigid textualism divorced from operational realities.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Sheikh Javeed Ahmad & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4426–4427 of 2025, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1503 : 2025 INSC 624.

2. Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Misha & Ors., [1998] Supp. 1 SCR 77; (1998) 7 SCC 273.

3. Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 215; (2005) 5 SCC 136.

4. Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, [2010] 10 SCR 561; (2010) 9 SCC 655.

5. High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors., [2003] 2 SCR 799; (2003) 4 SCC 712.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, Section 103 (as applicable).

2. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (qualification schedules referenced in advertisement).

3. Directorate General of Health Services circular (relaxation dated 12 February 2008) — as annexed in record.